The Afghan war logs

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
EAO

So was Afghanistan an unprovoked Invasion by the US & NATO?

EAO
The so called friendly fire incident was clarified in other news orgs st the same time that you posted it was a Blue on Blue.

Should slow down a tad.
Hope you don't fuk that way. Humor and meant as such - Not to be construed as insulting.

Q: How many Taliban were involved in the events of 9/11?
A: None

Q: How western targets did the Taliban attack before we entered Afghanistan and attacked them?
A: Zero

Our only justification for attacking the Taliban was that some of the people allegedly involved in the events of 9/11 were hiding in Taliban controlled territory. At the time the US and their allies including Canada invaded Afghanistan, no one had been convicted in a court of law anywhere for the events of 9/11. By our legal standards everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

So yes our attack against the Taliban was unprovoked and unjustified. We should have at least convicted the people in a court of law first, instead of demanding the Taliban hand over people who are innocent until proven guilty.

I would agree that the people allegedly involved in the events of 9/11 are legitimate targets, but the Taliban were not our enemies until we attacked them. We should have engaged Taliban leaders diplomatically and treated them with tact and respect for their culture and customs. Instead our leaders arrogantly underestimated their resolve and resourcefulness. We threatened them and gave ultimatums.

I'm not suggesting we should have made friends with the Taliban. On the contrary we should have been borderline hostile with them for hosting the criminals behind the events of 9/11. In fact if I remember correctly, the Taliban immediately condemned 9/11 when it happened. They claimed not to believe that OBL was involved. I believe they even offered to extradite 9/11 criminals in their jurisdiction, provided they were proven guilty first. Like us, the Taliban also believe people are innocent until proven guilty. Their burden of proof is more lax, and their punishments are more severe, but fundamentally they have the same concept of innocent until proven guilty.

We should have exploited their offer to cooperate and worked to find a diplomatic solution to the many problems we shared regarding their "guests". We should have started criminal proceedings against the people involved in absentia and played for time. Instead we gave them an ultimatum. Remember Bush's statement? Your either with us or with the terrorists. As per their laws and customs, they told us to kiss off and sided with their guests. They had no choice and I doubt the Bush adminstration cared how many innocent camel jockeys would be killed in the cross fire.

What few people outside of this area understand is how honor bound these people are to protect their "guests". Taliban must fight to the death to protect guests from harm, even unwelcome or unwanted guests, which is likely how they viewed OBL and his entourage. Attacking the Taliban to get at their guests unnecessarily limited our options. We should have used Taliban culture and customs to our advantage. In their culture an unwelcome guest is honor bound to leave voluntarily. Instead of bombing the Taliban, we should have sealed their borders and waited patiently. While waiting we should have gradually cranked up the pressure by blocking the flow of arms into the Taliban's area of control. Don't forget the Taliban were at war with the Afghanistan Northern Alliance. If necessary, we should have gradually started arming their adversaries until the Taliban and their honor bound guests got the message. Eventually (within weeks to months), the Taliban's unwelcome guest would have "voluntarily" left Taliban territory. By which time, we would have used our overwhelming military advatage to capture them as they left, with few casualties and no war with the Taliban. This whole mess could have been resolved within a year and OBL and cadre would either be dead or rotting in prison. The Taliban would have gone back to their war with the Alliance and we wouldn't be having this pleasant online chat about screw ups and missed opportunities.

In case I'm not making myself clear, my point is that we made the Taliban our enemy when we attacked them, not the other way around. Its possible that eventually our dispute with the Taliban regarding their guests may have come to war, but its also possible war with the Taliban could have been avoided. Diplomacy was never Bush's strong suit.

Unlike our politicians, the Taliban understand patience. They will never give up and the sooner our leaders understand this, the sooner this conflict with them will be resolved. We will never be able to impose our will on these people. Involving the Taliban in our dispute with the people of 9/11 was a strategic mistake. We forced the Taliban to take the side of the people allegedly involved in the events of 9/11 and now we paying for it.

The future of this conflict doesn't look good. Canada will pull out of Afghanistan in 2011. Casualties will increase over time and eventually the rest of NATO will pull out too, leaving the US and their mercenaries. Western leaders will try to pass responsibility over to the Afghan army/police, but I doubt the Afghans will be able to keep a lid on the violence and eventually their civil war will spread throughout the region.

In the end, western powers will fail to impose their will, customs and culture on these people, which should never have been our objective. The objective should have been apprehending the people allegedly responsible for 9/11 and bringing them justice. Our short sighted politicians will successfully convince their supporters that the Afghanistan government failed and that they are blameless. Many gullible people will believe them.

Afghanistan will continue to be a failed state for the forseeable future with or without Canada's involvement.

The real battle is in Pakistan now anyway. What happens in Afghanistan is almost inconsequential. Pakistan is in a simmering civil war. The corrupt incompentent government could be overthrown from within at any moment. The best we can hope to achieve is to stop the Taliban and their allies from taking over the Pakistan military, secret service and eventually the country. I predict that within a few years, Pakistan and their nuclear arsenal will be controlled by elements sympathetic to Iran, if that hasn't happened already. Next will be Saudi Arabia and Egypt, which I understand was the motivation for 9/11. We have been outplayed by a guy in a cave somewhere.

BTW, that's not a wish but an prediction based on observations of past and current events.

I think the best thing that will come out of this is the understanding that Pakistan is pretty much officially supporting the Taliban. We (as in 'the West') should really avoid much dealings with Pakistan.
True.

Now we have a better idea who is our enemy. This war doesn't have anything to do with 9/11 anymore. Now its about Pakistan....
 
Last edited:

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Before I begin eao, let me say this is a refreshing change, a post of your own words and well written. Not only am I impressed by that, I'm impressed with the opinion contained within. I may not agree with it entirely, but I respect it.
Q: How many Taliban were involved in the events of 9/11?
A: None
Wrong, all. The entire gov't of Afghanistan was culpable. They gave safe and unhindered security to the alleged perpetrators. That's no different then if I gave the MWS a safe place to practice and train on my property, to commit violent and illegal acts, in the community.

What few people outside of this area understand is how honor bound these people are to protect their "guests". Taliban must fight to the death to protect guests from harm, even unwelcome or unwanted guests, which is likely how they viewed OBL and his entourage. Attacking the Taliban to get at their guests unnecessarily limited our options. We should have used Taliban culture and customs to our advantage. In their culture an unwelcome guest is honor bound to leave voluntarily. Instead of bombing the Taliban, we should have sealed their borders and waited patiently. While waiting we should have gradually cranked up the pressure by blocking the flow of arms into the Taliban's area of control. Don't forget the Taliban were at war with the Afghanistan Northern Alliance. If necessary, we should have gradually started arming their adversaries until the Taliban and their honor bound guests got the message. Eventually (within weeks to months), the Taliban's unwelcome guest would have "voluntarily" left Taliban territory. By which time, we would have used our overwhelming military advatage to capture them as they left, with few casualties and no war with the Taliban. This whole mess could have been resolved within a year and OBL and cadre would either be dead or rotting in prison. The Taliban would have gone back to their war with the Alliance and we wouldn't be having this pleasant online chat about screw ups and missed opportunities.
And when this blockade started cracking down on things like wheelchair batteries, where would your opinion lay?

In case I'm not making myself clear, my point is that we made the Taliban our enemy when we attacked them, not the other way around. Its possible that eventually our dispute with the Taliban regarding their guests may have come to war, but its also possible war with the Taliban could have been avoided. Diplomacy was never Bush's strong suit.
Neither was it the Taliban's.

The Taliban are a group so hell bent on Islamist superiority, that they were committing crimes against humanity in the name of Islam, long before the west entered Afghanistan. The murder of children, women, the destruction of historical artifacts, the protection of, training of and support of Islamist terror groups that went out in to the world to do nothing more then just kill and maim.

You can't reason with people like this eao.

Unlike our politicians, the Taliban understand patience. They will never give up and the sooner our leaders understand this, the sooner this conflict with them will be resolved. We will never be able to impose our will on these people. Involving the Taliban in our dispute with the people of 9/11 was a strategic mistake. We forced the Taliban to take the side of the people allegedly involved in the events of 9/11 and now we paying for it.
We didn't force the Taliban to choose their side, the Taliban had already done that, long before 9/11 hit the play book planing stage.

You seem to be negating a whole chapter of Taliban history to support your opinions. But I will agree with you on one extremely important point, albeit corrected. Afghan's have patience, not the Taliban, and as they have done in the past they will fight off the invaders, tooth and nail, until the invaders have lost their will to go on.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Q: How many Taliban were involved in the events of 9/11?
A: None

Q: How western targets did the Taliban attack before we entered Afghanistan and attacked them?
A: Zero

Our only justification for attacking the Taliban was that some of the people allegedly involved in the events of 9/11 were hiding in Taliban controlled territory. At the time the US and their allies including Canada invaded Afghanistan, no one had been convicted in a court of law anywhere for the events of 9/11. By our legal standards everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

And right away you along with questional medis assume there all factual. They blew us up by admission of their leader, When they surrender we can try whats left, till then there is a little war going on.

Julian Assange and his group Wikileaks really must be a bunch of idiots if they think the world will believe what those note say without irrefutable proof. (Of course some of you excepted)


LONDON – WikiLeaks' editor-in-chief claims his organization doesn't know who sent it some 91,000 secret U.S. military documents, telling journalists that the Web site was set up to hide the source of its data from those who receive it.
[COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]Julian [COLOR=#366388 !important]Assange[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] didn't say whether he meant he had no idea who leaked the documents or whether his organization simply could not be sure. But he did say the added layer of secrecy helps protect the site's sources from [COLOR=#366388 !important][COLOR=#366388 !important]spy [COLOR=#366388 !important]agencies[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and hostile corporations.

WikiLeaks: We don't know source of leaked data - Yahoo! News

To many people like conspiracy theories, not enough action in their real life.

"We never know the source of the leak," he told journalists gathered at London's Frontline Club late Tuesday. "Our whole system is designed such that we don't have to keep that secret." Pretty much tell them anything and they will print it.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
"To many people like conspiracy theories, not enough action in their real life."....


Does that mean we all should report for enrollment in the armed forces, for the real `action`....and those not eligible remain docile!?8O
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
"To many people like conspiracy theories, not enough action in their real life."....


Does that mean we all should report for enrollment in the armed forces, for the real `action`....and those not eligible remain docile!?8O

You asked my age and I provided it - it is also on my profile - Why would my age be of interest?
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Oh, you just come across a tad immature from the rest here, thats all.

Was it 53 you said? I`d have sworn you were going on 23. (no offence to 23 yr olds here):wav:



You asked my age and I provided it - it is also on my profile - Why would my age be of interest?
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Oh, you just come across a tad immature from the rest here, thats all.

Was it 53 you said? I`d have sworn you were going on 23. (no offence to 23 yr olds here):wav:
Now is that all you can come up with - I guess you are another educational failure - That along with morals - and no doubt got beat up quite often for dumb ass remarks.

What an inspiration you must be to your children - I can hear the Mother saying - Now children - go to school and learn - unless of course you want to be like your father.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
I believe I answered your`age`question here (or in another thread) and it got deleted? Don`t really care one way or the other.

Now back on topic.


Now is that all you can come up with - I guess you are another educational failure - That along with morals - and no doubt got beat up quite often for dumb ass remarks.

What an inspiration you must be to your children - I can hear the Mother saying - Now children - go to school and learn - unless of course you want to be like your father.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
I believe I answered your`age`question here (or in another thread) and it got deleted? Don`t really care one way or the other.

Now back on topic.
Then if it did not matter in future do not ask a question that does not matter Eh
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
It backfired on you, huh? lmao

EAO, you may not like to hear this, but the Taliban are not nice people.
 

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
"To many people like conspiracy theories, not enough action in their real life."....


Does that mean we all should report for enrollment in the armed forces, for the real `action`....and those not eligible remain docile!?8O
Not a bad idea, get a taste of the real stuff, earn those white feathers . :lol:
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Grreeat...in my best Scotish accent!

I have a pool of Arab friends that would like to treat you to a bukaka.
:p

I have a cuppa tea right here and it ain't going in my ear. :tard:
 
Last edited:

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Grreeat...in my best Scotish accent!

I have a pool of Arab friends that would like to treat you to a bukaka.
:p
Pass. If they're friends of yours and they are like you, I'd be laughing too much.

"What's that thing? How wouldja even hold it? Tweezers?"
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
So long as they can work it between that gap in you`re two front teeth, its a plan. PM me yer addy and a convenient time to slip the boys in (and outta sight of hubby).

Remember......swallow!:canada:


Pass. If they're friends of yours and they are like you, I'd be laughing too much.

"What's that thing? How wouldja even hold it? Tweezers?"
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
So long as they can work it between that gap in you`re two front teeth, its a plan. PM me yer addy and a convenient time to slip the boys in (and outta sight of hubby).

Remember......swallow!:canada:
Sorry. There's no gap there. As usual you haven't a clue what you're gibbering about.
 

JBeee

Time Out
Jun 1, 2007
1,826
52
48
Don`t worry my love. They said `any gap` would do but wondering if you could snap a pic or two to give em a heads-up...you know....what thier facing.:p


Sorry. There's no gap there. As usual you haven't a clue what you're gibbering about.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
If they're like you, they wouldn't have a clue if it took flight and crapped on them.